THE ARGLEBARGLE TRUMP WILL TRY TO USE TO WEASEL OUT OF THE GEORGIA CASE IF HE WINS THE ELECTION

Mark Levin is a right-wing media hack who used to be a practicing lawyer. On the right he's seen as one of the great Doctors of Legal Thinkology, so I expect Republicans to advance this argument about Donald Trump's Georgia case in all seriousness -- I assume it will become official government policy -- if Trump wins the 2024 election:

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see what relevance the Constitution's Supremacy Clause has:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Sure, but the Justice Department's opinion that a president can't be indicted or prosecuted while in office is a legal opinion, not a law or treaty. It's not in the Constitution.

However, the wording of it doesn't really distinguish between federal and state cases:

In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The memo doesn't say "The federal indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President," so I assume a newly reelected Trump (and his party) would argue that any prosecution of Trump has to stop immediately. And I can imagine Very Serious People -- you know, the same people who argue now that President Biden should pardon Trump, for the good of country -- making the argument that state charges filed during Trump's years as a private citizen shouldn't be prosecuted at all if he's on his way to the White House again.

America will be on shaky ground if Mark Levin and people like him are determining government policy, but that's what's likely to happen. So we really need to beat Trump at the ballot box.